You know this could all very easily be resolved if Spain just gave up its claim to Gibraltar.

Or by the UK realising that an empire is so 18th century.

Many countries always talk glibly about "giving up claims", or advising others to allow some region to break away, yet they would send the military to crush any region in their own country that tried the same.

It would be a nice start if all northern hemisphere nations put some of their "values" to practice for change, and gave up their so-called claims to Antarctica, a continent with no cities, no history, virtually no people to self-determine, and most basically, a complete anachronism in the year 2020, when most of the same nations claim the colonial era is long over and tell other nations to "get in line"... Yet there they are clinging to claims to lands that are not even in their own hemisphere and barely hold more water than me going through some stretch of North America or Europe that no human being had stepped on before, and claiming it.

That would be a very meaningful move that you are serious about post-colonialism. But then again, I don't think they are!

I do find it funny all the people in here claiming to know more about Portugal than Portuguese people, and basically taking their pinky fingers up to their mouths and saying "Yes, but now all your economy are belong to us, bwahahahaha" when presented with facts. Way to dispel the notion that the European Union was just a ruse, a long con, a Franco-German plot to achieve in another way what they could not do militarily, guys... with people like you making its bidding, how could someone possibly not want to defend the EU, amirite? I am sure historically neutral countries like Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland will be delighted to know that they are now expected to come to Spain's rescue every time they get into a pissing match with someone (which, given the average Spaniard's ego vis-a-vis their capacity in the trouser department, is bound to become quite frequently).

If you imagine that, owing to some ancient treaty, Spain had a base in Dover, from which Russia’s chief spy had repeatedly sneaked into Kent, and smugglers had flooded the country with cheap fags, massively undermining our tax base, we would be pretty cross, too. It’s something of a wonder that Spain has put up with it for so long.

If you imagine that, owing to some ancient treaty, Spain had a base in Dover, from which Russia’s chief spy had repeatedly sneaked into Kent, and smugglers had flooded the country with cheap fags, massively undermining our tax base, we would be pretty cross, too. It’s something of a wonder that Spain has put up with it for so long.

If Spain's economy is being that badly undermined by Gibraltar, doesn't that suggest Spain's economy is bollocked to begin with?

I knew that some UK diplomats pissed of a lot of people in Brussels but I did not think it was that obvious.

“We recognise that this was not your choice however and that Scotland voted strongly to remain within the EU. The question of Scotland’s constitutional future, and your relationships with the UK and the EU are for the people of Scotland to decide. It is not our place to tell Scotland what path you should take.”

The letter continues: “We regret that the UK’s government has chosen to follow the path of a ‘hard Brexit’ and has so far refused to properly take into account the preferences of Scottish citizens in the withdrawal process.

“Therefore, if Scotland were to become an independent country and decided to seek to maintain European Union membership, we offer our full support to ensure the transition is as swift, smooth, and orderly as possible.

“Scotland would be most welcome as a full member of the European Union, with your five million European citizens continuing to benefit from the rights and protections we all currently enjoy.”

I do find it funny all the people in here claiming to know more about Portugal than Portuguese people, and basically taking their pinky fingers up to their mouths and saying "Yes, but now all your economy are belong to us, bwahahahaha" when presented with facts. Way to dispel the notion that the European Union was just a ruse, a long con, a Franco-German plot to achieve in another way what they could not do militarily, guys... with people like you making its bidding, how could someone possibly not want to defend the EU, amirite? I am sure historically neutral countries like Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland will be delighted to know that they are now expected to come to Spain's rescue every time they get into a pissing match with someone (which, given the average Spaniard's ego vis-a-vis their capacity in the trouser department, is bound to become quite frequently).

Says the US-resident Portuguese?

Come on, this whole BS was started by the British and only the British. When some Spanish politician steps in your dismissive comments may be warranted, not this time around.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

If Spain's economy is being that badly undermined by Gibraltar, doesn't that suggest Spain's economy is bollocked to begin with?

So? Is it up to the UK to measure exactly how much of a PITA a tax haven next door to you is before taking action?

What a load of nosense about wars. But I'm going to join in just for the fun of it. You say the UK would be defeated but I think a UK/USA coalition could defeat the EU along with Aus and NZ help. If Argentina wanted to try and retake the falklands at the same time as Spain and GIB all the UK would have to do is declare war on argentina and threaten to send a few cruise missiles in Buenos Aires. Ahh well just my ten pence !

What a load of nosense about wars. But I'm going to join in just for the fun of it. You say the UK would be defeated but I think a UK/USA coalition could defeat the EU along with Aus and NZ help. If Argentina wanted to try and retake the falklands at the same time as Spain and GIB all the UK would have to do is declare war on argentina and threaten to send a few cruise missiles in Buenos Aires. Ahh well just my ten pence !

Sure, and if the Martians joined the EU, and the Galactic Empire joined forces with Russia...

Lets face the facts. The US won't side with the UK. If they did, then they would irreparably ruin their relationship with all of the EU, and in particular with Spain, home to the biggest US Navy station in Europe. If they abstain from getting involved, they will keep their relationship with both the EU and the UK.

Secondly, the UK has less than 120 Tomahawks. Realistically, they would struggle to deploy even half of that number at any one time. That's not really a lot in the face of a combined Spanish-Argentine aggression.

The UK isn't a superpower, and it would be foolish of British politicians to hedge their bets on the support of others to solve their own self-inflicted problems. They couldn't even rely on the US in 1982.

What a load of nosense about wars. But I'm going to join in just for the fun of it. You say the UK would be defeated but I think a UK/USA coalition could defeat the EU along with Aus and NZ help. If Argentina wanted to try and retake the falklands at the same time as Spain and GIB all the UK would have to do is declare war on argentina and threaten to send a few cruise missiles in Buenos Aires. Ahh well just my ten pence !

Sure, and if the Martians joined the EU, and the Galactic Empire joined forces with Russia...

Lets face the facts. The US won't side with the UK. If they did, then they would irreparably ruin their relationship with all of the EU, and in particular with Spain, home to the biggest US Navy station in Europe. If they abstain from getting involved, they will keep their relationship with both the EU and the UK.

Secondly, the UK has less than 120 Tomahawks. Realistically, they would struggle to deploy even half of that number at any one time. That's not really a lot in the face of a combined Spanish-Argentine aggression.

The UK isn't a superpower, and it would be foolish of British politicians to hedge their bets on the support of others to solve their own self-inflicted problems. They couldn't even rely on the US in 1982.

With the current trump president he probably would side with the UK. He hates the EU and has a bit of a liking for the UK for some reason. If USA had to make the choice they'd take the UK over the Eu under trump.

Argentina hardly has any fast jets left and theres a good analysis on youtube if a falklands UK war was to take place in 2017. The 4 Eurofighter typhoons based and the single type 45 destroyer could hold off argentina on there own with the troops based on the island. The typhoons are far superior to the outdated a4's of Argentina. The UK could hold off Argentina on there own and defeat the EU with US/Aus/NZ help.

excuse me, but it was the Spanish that insisted on putting in a veto about Gibraltar into the EU position paper, and the EU accepted it. Spain is at fault for making it an issue.

The EU didn't accept anything yet. It will be discussed at the special Brexit Summit on April 29th. At present it's only a proposal by the EU Commision.

Aesma wrote:

Each EU country has a veto regardless of anything being negotiated.

Spain doesn't have a veto regarding the divorce settlement (where the paragraph is in), which can be approved with a majority. However, the UK may be glad that one EU member already made clear what it expects to get in return for accepting any new agreement between the UK and the EU..

The EU didn't accept anything yet. It will be discussed at the special Brexit Summit on April 29th. At present it's only a proposal by the EU Commision.

Which should have been shut down immediately by the EU Commission as immaterial to the vast number of things to be discussed over the next 2 years.

LJ wrote:

Spain doesn't have a veto regarding the divorce settlement (where the paragraph is in), which can be approved with a majority. However, the UK may be glad that one EU member already made clear what it expects to get in return for accepting any new agreement between the UK and the EU..

To be honest, I don't think it will be possible for the UK to get a fair deal from the EU over the next 2 years. Maybe afterwards, but not now. Here is why.

Consider these negotiations as a business negotiation. In business, the two parties always, as a rule, seek a win-win solution. Both sides want the relationship to be beneficial to both parties, both parties gain.

Among the EU, you will have the pragmatists, the business leaders such as the German auto industry, the French Wine industry and other EU businesses would love to have a win-win trade deal providing for free trade between the UK and EU.

But then you have the EU idealogues - the high priests. They are the ones who want to expand EU "unification", centralized power, etc. They are in control, and I believe they will ignore the pragmatists, and demand impossible concessions from the UK. They are worried that if other countries decide to leave (whether this year, in 10 years, or 100 years, if the UK prospered after Brexit it might make that option more attractive. They have already declared that they will not accept any deal where the UK is better off outside the EU. They will do everything they can that the UK suffers after leaving the EU, "pour encourager les autres". They cannot accept win-win. They want win-lose, or even lose-lose, as long as the UK suffers.

In such a situation, I think Theresa May should tell the nation that the EU is not being reasonable due to the above, and that:1) She is recalling the negotiating team and she will not send them back unless a more reasonable EU starting position is issued.2) UK negotiations with other nations regarding trade deals will begin immediately, although they will not become effective until the UK officially has left the EU.3) The UK government shall proceed under the assumption of "no deal". In two years' time, border and customs controls shall be in place according to WTO and other international agreements. This assumption will only change after the execution of an actual agreement.4) EU Citizens residing in the UK at the time of final Brexit will be allowed to stay as resident aliens, and the UK expects the EU to act with reciprocal courtesy regarding UK citizens in the EU.5) The UK will continue to pay its monthly contributions to the EU for the next two years. But any additional payments are out of the question.

If the EU comes back with a more pragmatist position that seeks win-win, great. If not, the UK should be prepared for "No Deal", which I think is a 75% possibility unless the UK agrees to unreasonable demands (like free movement)

We will not agree on what win-win should be, but the problem isn't even there, it's all about perceptions. May must appear to have a win. The EU must not let that happen. That is the pragmatist position. There is nothing pragmatic about the win-win you describe, as soon enough the EU would break apart.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

We will not agree on what win-win should be, but the problem isn't even there, it's all about perceptions. May must appear to have a win. The EU must not let that happen. That is the pragmatist position. There is nothing pragmatic about the win-win you describe, as soon enough the EU would break apart.

Then you are on the side of the ideologues, and there is nothing to be gained in negotiations.

Tell me, if the EU wanted to enter into free-trade discussions with, let's say, the US, would it also insist that all US businesses abide by EU regulations, free movement, and that the US be subject to the EU court?

If the UK wants a basic free-trade agreement, I don't think there will be a problem. The problem is if it wants access to the common market.

OK, there is some confusion about this - you make a good point. What in your mind is the difference between a free trade and a common market? The way I see it, a lot of Brits say they want access to the common market, but what they actually want is free trade - because for the past 40 years the arrangement has been called "the Common Market".

To be honest, I don't think it will be possible for the UK to get a fair deal from the EU over the next 2 years.

Who gets to define what a fair deal is? Over 45% of UK exports go to other EU members. In the opposite direction, it's less than 20%. Isn't a fair treaty a treaty that acknowledges this difference? Every treaty in the world acknowledges explicitly or implicitly that one party has more leverage than the other, and this one will not be any different.

That said, some EU members see it as vital to EU cohesion that the terms of any future relationship are not as advantageous as (or not even close to) the terms between EU members. And in a way, why not? Even with NAFTA, the US-Canada relationship is not the same as, say the Texa-Florida relationship.

All the "pragmatists" you mentioned are indeed keen on a good trade treaty because they export a significant quantity of their productions to the UK. For every one of them, there is another business leader who competes with British products and would prefer their competitors be locked out. They are as pragmatist from their perspective.

Dreadnought wrote:

In such a situation, I think Theresa May should tell the nation that the EU is not being reasonable due to the above, and that:1) She is recalling the negotiating team and she will not send them back unless a more reasonable EU starting position is issued.

That giant sucking sound you hear are the bankers rushing into the tube to Heathrow on the way to another EU capital. Good-bye passporting, equivalency, Euro clearing, etc. The financial service industry needs a deal in place on day 1, not some undetermined date in the future. And since moving their operations takes time, they need to have a clear understanding of what that deal will be at least a year before day 1. Nothing would freak them out and make them accelerate their plans for a British-less future like Theresa May calling her imported crack team of negotiators back home (not that she ever would). For some of these institutions, it's already too late to an extent. The question is no longer whether some of their operations should move and where. Where has been decided, what's to be determined based on how the negotiations will evolve, is how much.

If the UK wants a basic free-trade agreement, I don't think there will be a problem. The problem is if it wants access to the common market.

OK, there is some confusion about this - you make a good point. What in your mind is the difference between a free trade and a common market? The way I see it, a lot of Brits say they want access to the common market, but what they actually want is free trade - because for the past 40 years the arrangement has been called "the Common Market".

The difference is paperwork, VAT issues, checks at the borders, etc. Free meaning no duties.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

The EU didn't accept anything yet. It will be discussed at the special Brexit Summit on April 29th. At present it's only a proposal by the EU Commision.

Which should have been shut down immediately by the EU Commission as immaterial to the vast number of things to be discussed over the next 2 years.

LJ wrote:

Spain doesn't have a veto regarding the divorce settlement (where the paragraph is in), which can be approved with a majority. However, the UK may be glad that one EU member already made clear what it expects to get in return for accepting any new agreement between the UK and the EU..

To be honest, I don't think it will be possible for the UK to get a fair deal from the EU over the next 2 years. Maybe afterwards, but not now. Here is why.

Consider these negotiations as a business negotiation. In business, the two parties always, as a rule, seek a win-win solution. Both sides want the relationship to be beneficial to both parties, both parties gain.

Among the EU, you will have the pragmatists, the business leaders such as the German auto industry, the French Wine industry and other EU businesses would love to have a win-win trade deal providing for free trade between the UK and EU.

But then you have the EU idealogues - the high priests. They are the ones who want to expand EU "unification", centralized power, etc. They are in control, and I believe they will ignore the pragmatists, and demand impossible concessions from the UK. They are worried that if other countries decide to leave (whether this year, in 10 years, or 100 years, if the UK prospered after Brexit it might make that option more attractive. They have already declared that they will not accept any deal where the UK is better off outside the EU. They will do everything they can that the UK suffers after leaving the EU, "pour encourager les autres". They cannot accept win-win. They want win-lose, or even lose-lose, as long as the UK suffers.

In such a situation, I think Theresa May should tell the nation that the EU is not being reasonable due to the above, and that:1) She is recalling the negotiating team and she will not send them back unless a more reasonable EU starting position is issued.2) UK negotiations with other nations regarding trade deals will begin immediately, although they will not become effective until the UK officially has left the EU.3) The UK government shall proceed under the assumption of "no deal". In two years' time, border and customs controls shall be in place according to WTO and other international agreements. This assumption will only change after the execution of an actual agreement.4) EU Citizens residing in the UK at the time of final Brexit will be allowed to stay as resident aliens, and the UK expects the EU to act with reciprocal courtesy regarding UK citizens in the EU.5) The UK will continue to pay its monthly contributions to the EU for the next two years. But any additional payments are out of the question.

If the EU comes back with a more pragmatist position that seeks win-win, great. If not, the UK should be prepared for "No Deal", which I think is a 75% possibility unless the UK agrees to unreasonable demands (like free movement)

The UK will pay for the next 3-4 decades, because there are still British persons working at the EU today and their pensions will have to be paid and it is not realistic to expect the other states to pay for that.

Come on, this whole BS was started by the British and only the British. When some Spanish politician steps in your dismissive comments may be warranted, not this time around.

excuse me, but it was the Spanish that insisted on putting in a veto about Gibraltar into the EU position paper, and the EU accepted it. Spain is at fault for making it an issue.

Spain has a veto on the position of an external border, just like the Irish will have with regards to NI or like Spain has with Morocco in the Ceuta and Melilla enclaves (which have special arrangements on top of the EU-Morocco general trade agreement). It didn't even have to be explicitly laid out in the letter, it was happening anyway because Gibraltar is not in the UK, and only got in the EU through some special arrangements which Spain had to accept at the time of EU access. That's lost now, and if the UK wants Gibraltar to be part of whatever UK-EU agreement it well have to compromise somewhere else.

At no point British sovereignty over Gibraltar has been challenged, but if the crown wants to support yet another tax haven, Spain needs to make sure it hurts the local economy as little as possible.

It's basic economic sense and of course the Gibraltarians knew it was going to happen. That's why they voted the way they voted, not because they're fervent europhiles at heart but because they know what a hard border would do to their economy.

That the May government didn't see it coming (Mr. Picardo is on record saying they warned them) tells you a lot about the way they had planned the whole Brexit thing.

I find amusing how some people think Britain has everything to lose and the EU nothing from brexit. Everybody seems to imply the EU will be even stronger without the UK. Well sorry, but I think hundreds of thousands of EU workers might be about to say goodbye to there jobs if a fair deal isn't given. Look how many European cars are on the UK's roads today, german built trains, Phillips light bulbs, french wine in the supermarkets. Many British holiday makers go to Portugal, Spain and France each year. When it comes to aviation, KLM serve more UK airports than any other airline, So I can't see there not being an aviation agreement as there would be plenty of jobs lost at Schipol and also half of the KLM cityhopper fleet parked too. Come on people, lets be realistic here, the UK's in a lot better position than many think. Im not saying the UK will come off 100% fine but I think theres plenty manouvering room.

I find amusing how some people think Britain has everything to lose and the EU nothing from brexit. Everybody seems to imply the EU will be even stronger without the UK. Well sorry, but I think hundreds of thousands of EU workers might be about to say goodbye to there jobs if a fair deal isn't given. Look how many European cars are on the UK's roads today, german built trains, Phillips light bulbs, french wine in the supermarkets. Many British holiday makers go to Portugal, Spain and France each year. When it comes to aviation, KLM serve more UK airports than any other airline, So I can't see there not being an aviation agreement as there would be plenty of jobs lost at Schipol and also half of the KLM cityhopper fleet parked too. Come on people, lets be realistic here, the UK's in a lot better position than many think. Im not saying the UK will come off 100% fine but I think theres plenty manouvering room.

Who's saying that? Of course it's a lose-lose situation. It's just that the UK stands to lose more, has a worse negotiating hand and the short-term shock will be worse, but then again it's the UK who got themselves into this mess.

It's a done deal now and the UK should try to get their preferences right because there's just no time to sort everything in two years time.

I find amusing how some people think Britain has everything to lose and the EU nothing from brexit. Everybody seems to imply the EU will be even stronger without the UK. Well sorry, but I think hundreds of thousands of EU workers might be about to say goodbye to there jobs if a fair deal isn't given. Look how many European cars are on the UK's roads today, german built trains, Phillips light bulbs, french wine in the supermarkets. Many British holiday makers go to Portugal, Spain and France each year. When it comes to aviation, KLM serve more UK airports than any other airline, So I can't see there not being an aviation agreement as there would be plenty of jobs lost at Schipol and also half of the KLM cityhopper fleet parked too. Come on people, lets be realistic here, the UK's in a lot better position than many think. Im not saying the UK will come off 100% fine but I think theres plenty manouvering room.

Who's saying that? Of course it's a lose-lose situation. It's just that the UK stands to lose more, has a worse negotiating hand and the short-term shock will be worse, but then again it's the UK who got themselves into this mess.

It's a done deal now and the UK should try to get their preferences right because there's just no time to sort everything in two years time.

Public in general and some members of this site and on previous threads.

It doesn't have to be a lose lose situation if the EU decided to grow up and be realistic for the benefit of both parties.

I find amusing how some people think Britain has everything to lose and the EU nothing from brexit. Everybody seems to imply the EU will be even stronger without the UK. Well sorry, but I think hundreds of thousands of EU workers might be about to say goodbye to there jobs if a fair deal isn't given. Look how many European cars are on the UK's roads today, german built trains, Phillips light bulbs, french wine in the supermarkets. Many British holiday makers go to Portugal, Spain and France each year. When it comes to aviation, KLM serve more UK airports than any other airline, So I can't see there not being an aviation agreement as there would be plenty of jobs lost at Schipol and also half of the KLM cityhopper fleet parked too. Come on people, lets be realistic here, the UK's in a lot better position than many think. Im not saying the UK will come off 100% fine but I think theres plenty manouvering room.

Who's saying that? Of course it's a lose-lose situation. It's just that the UK stands to lose more, has a worse negotiating hand and the short-term shock will be worse, but then again it's the UK who got themselves into this mess.

It's a done deal now and the UK should try to get their preferences right because there's just no time to sort everything in two years time.

Public in general and some members of this site and on previous threads.

It doesn't have to be a lose lose situation if the EU decided to grow up and be realistic for the benefit of both parties.

Grow up as in give away all the benefits of membership and none of the obligations?

That's not how diplomacy works. The only realistic options are the Canada or the Norway models, the sooner the UK makes up their mind on which one they want the better.

The EU has already put the Canada model on the table. It's there for taking on day 1 post-Brexit.

Come on people, lets be realistic here, the UK's in a lot better position than many think. Im not saying the UK will come off 100% fine but I think theres plenty manouvering room.

No. While UK is an independent country, the ties to the EU were built over a long period of time and severing them will be painful. Very painful. I think Brexit would be something like splitting of Czechoslovakia on steroids, where the UK is in Slovakia's position. I experienced it first hand. Not nice. Yes, Slovakia is now fairly OK, but it took 20 years. So if you believe that the population of UK won't feel any setbacks, you're badly mistaken. Following the Czechoslovakia example, the EU will have it's share of problems too. But these will set in later and will be far less severe than the British problems. And as far as the maneuvering room is concerned, the best you can hope in is zero tariffs on British goods.

Come on people, lets be realistic here, the UK's in a lot better position than many think. Im not saying the UK will come off 100% fine but I think theres plenty manouvering room.

No. While UK is an independent country, the ties to the EU were built over a long period of time and severing them will be painful. Very painful. I think Brexit would be something like splitting of Czechoslovakia on steroids, where the UK is in Slovakia's position. I experienced it first hand. Not nice. Yes, Slovakia is now fairly OK, but it took 20 years. So if you believe that the population of UK won't feel any setbacks, you're badly mistaken. Following the Czechoslovakia example, the EU will have it's share of problems too. But these will set in later and will be far less severe than the British problems. And as far as the maneuvering room is concerned, the best you can hope in is zero tariffs on British goods.

Like I said the UK wouldn't be coming out 100% alright. Do you not realise the amount of cars the UK gets from the EU? It would be suicide not to have a beneficial trade deal. Im sure the car makers will lobby for this. This obsession for 'punishing' Britain should stop too. If you don't want UK traffic through AMS, FRA and CDG don't worry, we will just push it through heathrow instead.

Like I said the UK wouldn't be coming out 100% alright. Do you not realise the amount of cars the UK gets from the EU? It would be suicide not to have a beneficial trade deal. Im sure the car makers will lobby for this. This obsession for 'punishing' Britain should stop too. If you don't want UK traffic through AMS, FRA and CDG don't worry, we will just push it through heathrow instead.

No, I do not realize the amount of cars coming to the UK market from the EU and honestly, I don't care. I don't live in Europe anymore. However, if this number is really high, where do you think the cars will come from? Nobody will be able to build sufficient capacities overnight and most importantly, nobody will be willing to do it for the UK market only. And as far as the traffic being rerouted through LHR instead of AMS, FRA and CGD, where will the capacity come from?

That said, I believe a CETA like agreement is possible, and honestly, I believe it's absolutely necessary for both sides. Sadly, it seems to be the only possible solution. Same status as Norway has would be possible too, but then why would the UK leave the EU at all?

Last edited by WildcatYXU on Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like I said the UK wouldn't be coming out 100% alright. Do you not realise the amount of cars the UK gets from the EU? It would be suicide not to have a beneficial trade deal. Im sure the car makers will lobby for this. This obsession for 'punishing' Britain should stop too. If you don't want UK traffic through AMS, FRA and CDG don't worry, we will just push it through heathrow instead.

It's almost a given that there will be no restrictions for point-to-point flights between the UK and the EU. But if, say, Easyjet wants to keep operating intra-EU routes that's something else entirely.

EU airlines OTOH have close to zero interest in operating intra-UK flights.

Like I said the UK wouldn't be coming out 100% alright. Do you not realise the amount of cars the UK gets from the EU? It would be suicide not to have a beneficial trade deal. Im sure the car makers will lobby for this. This obsession for 'punishing' Britain should stop too. If you don't want UK traffic through AMS, FRA and CDG don't worry, we will just push it through heathrow instead.

No, I do not realize the amount of cars coming to the UK market from the EU and honestly, I don't care. I don't live in Europe anymore. However, if this number is really high, where do you think the cars will come from? Nobody will be able to build sufficient capacities overnight and most importantly, nobody will be willing to do it for the UK market only. And as far as the traffic being rerouted through LHR instead of AMS, FRA and CGD, where will the capacity come from?

That said, I believe a CETA like agreement is possible, and honestly, I believe it's absolutely necessary for both sides. Sadly, it seems to be the only possible solution. Same status as Norway has would be possible too, but then why would the UK leave the EU at all?

Well why are you even bothering with this thread then? You don't live in Europe and you've just said you don't care. You don't live in the UK so the reality is, your commenting on something you know nothing about.

Larger aircraft if the market is there for them.

Regarding the UK not building cars UK citizens want from the post below Wildcats. The UK does build some Japenese cars like the Quashaqi or however its spelt. But we've kind of specialised in the car making we are good at, high end luxury cars e.g Aston Martin, Jaguar, Range Rovers etc. Cars with large profit margins and we can sell Britishness as a mark of quality and class, which overseas rich people love. We can't get our cost per unit low enough to mass produce every day average cars down low enough to compete with the Japenese, so another reason why the UK builds cars UK consumers don't want.

Well why are you even bothering with this thread then? You don't live in Europe and you've just said you don't care. You don't live in the UK so the reality is, your commenting on something you know nothing about.

Larger aircraft if the market is there for them.

Regarding the UK not building cars UK citizens want from the post below Wildcats. The UK does build some Japenese cars like the Quashaqi or however its spelt. But we've kind of specialised in the car making we are good at, high end luxury cars e.g Aston Martin, Jaguar, Range Rovers etc. Cars with large profit margins and we can sell Britishness as a mark of quality and class, which overseas rich people love. We can't get our cost per unit low enough to mass produce every day average cars down low enough to compete with the Japenese, so another reason why the UK builds cars UK consumers don't want.

Why do I bother? Because it's very interesting to watch and while I definitely don't know the UK, I know enough about economics to enjoy the show.As far as the cars go, Land Rover will soon spread Britishness with cars built in Nitra, Slovakia...funny, isn't it? Just as funny as knowing who the owners of Jaguar Land Rover are.As far as the Japanese are concerned (I believe Nissan and Honda have assembly plants in the UK), it IMO depends on outcome of the Brexit negotiations. If it becomes too expensive to import cars from the UK to the mainland, they will move regardless of what they promised after the Brexit vote.

Well why are you even bothering with this thread then? You don't live in Europe and you've just said you don't care. You don't live in the UK so the reality is, your commenting on something you know nothing about.

Larger aircraft if the market is there for them.

Regarding the UK not building cars UK citizens want from the post below Wildcats. The UK does build some Japenese cars like the Quashaqi or however its spelt. But we've kind of specialised in the car making we are good at, high end luxury cars e.g Aston Martin, Jaguar, Range Rovers etc. Cars with large profit margins and we can sell Britishness as a mark of quality and class, which overseas rich people love. We can't get our cost per unit low enough to mass produce every day average cars down low enough to compete with the Japenese, so another reason why the UK builds cars UK consumers don't want.

Why do I bother? Because it's very interesting to watch and while I definitely don't know the UK, I know enough about economics to enjoy the show.As far as the cars go, Land Rover will soon spread Britishness with cars built in Nitra, Slovakia...funny, isn't it? Just as funny as knowing who the owners of Jaguar Land Rover are.As far as the Japanese are concerned (I believe Nissan and Honda have assembly plants in the UK), it IMO depends on outcome of the Brexit negotiations. If it becomes too expensive to import cars from the UK to the mainland, they will move regardless of what they promised after the Brexit vote.

I have studied Economics, I also live in the UK so I think I know more than enough about the subject. Yes I know all about the Slovakian built cars. But meanwhile, Aston Martin are setting up there new production plant in South Wales, which is still going ahead with brexit looming. Look it up. These Japenese plants won't close netheir, the UK buys more than enough of them too. If theres no brexit deal and theres tariffs placed on European car imports Ford and the Japenese car makers will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I have studied Economics, I also live in the UK so I think I know more than enough about the subject. Yes I know all about the Slovakian built cars. But meanwhile, Aston Martin are setting up there new production plant in South Wales, which is still going ahead with brexit looming. Look it up. These Japenese plants won't close netheir, the UK buys more than enough of them too. If theres no brexit deal and theres tariffs placed on European car imports Ford and the Japenese car makers will be laughing all the way to the bank.

They may or may not. Depends on many factors. For example, where the parts are coming from. As I said, it's an interesting show to watch. I have enough corn and I keep the popcorn maker well maintained.

That said, going to WTO rules would be totally stupid, damaging for both sides and I don't believe for a second it will happen.

These Japenese plants won't close netheir, the UK buys more than enough of them too. If theres no brexit deal and theres tariffs placed on European car imports Ford and the Japenese car makers will be laughing all the way to the bank.

AFAIK the majority of the parts which are used are not produced in the UK and thus without a deal the price of the average UK car would increase. Anyway, it will be interesting what will happen with Vauxhall the new electric Mini Cooper line.